I dont get Harry Greb's boxing Record

[Telepath]

Christ dudes... You want a measure of Harry's greatness?

His first fight with Tunney, in which he turned Gene into shish kebob, he was outweighed by 12 pounds and he had more than six inches less reach. This against a guy who would go on to win the heavyweight championship against Jack Dempsey.

[The Beatles]

Christ dudes... You want a measure of Harry's greatness?

His first fight with Tunney, in which he turned Gene into shish kebob, he was outweighed by 12 pounds and he had more than six inches less reach. This against a guy who would go on to win the heavyweight championship against Jack Dempsey.

i looked at your sig and didn't bother reading your post

[EzzardFan]

because thats like sayin somebody like ray leonard cant possibly be as great as willie pep cause he's had about 200 less fights.ranking in that style,no current or even recent fighter has a chance of cracking top 40 and thats plain silly in my opinion.

No it's plain sensible. The boxers today have nowhere near the skills of the boxers that fought from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. There are many reasons for this:

Less fighters
Less fights. In the early days most fighters fought a minimum of once a month. That meant they's have fought at least 50 times within 4 years, and an average of 100-200 times in their entire career.

Less gyms

Less boxing clubs

Less trainers with less experience.

Poor refereeing, failure to allow infighting which is now essentially a dead art.

Too many 'sports scientists, personal trainers, and nutritionists who earn their living from marketing training and nutrition that has nothing to do with boxing.

Heavyweights that are just too heavy to move. Watching two beached whales is more interesting.

Less experience of losing. see back in the old days nobody cared too much about going undefeated, so they threw good fighters together in the hope of making a good fight. Those tough fights were great experiences. Today it's common place to duck any opponent a contender doesn't feel he can beat, right up until the point he challenges for the title. So what we have now is a bunch so manufactured contenders fighting tomato cans, but no each other, and waiting for their shot at the champ. If a tomato can beats a contender then everyone else ducks him. That's why fighters are so **** these days.

The high number of KOs we see today is due to A) The lack of defensive skills, and B) because the fights are badly mismatched.

you keep sating "better fighters".well i ask better in terms of what?

Everything but without the body builder look.

You say he fought once a week, was he fighting legendary great fighers once a week? I look at a lot of great old school fighters & i see them in their primes facing fighters with 15,20,30,35 losses.

Sometimes quality is greater than quantity.

See my point above on how fighters these days have manufactured records. In the old days nobody ducked anyone and as a result there were more hard fights, and more fights that went the distance. The result of this was that people lost to each other a lot more. This experience made them better fighters.

How many times did a black fighter get robbed so the white fighter can win? Why do i bring this up? Because in the so called golden age of boxing, black people did not get equal treatment IN LIFE. How much more in sports?

How many times were black fighters denied title shots?

We agree on that point, but it mostly affected the HW division.

Personally, i dont think a fighter that has no film footage should be in the top ten. As time goes by, as fighters careers are more appreciated & thoroughly examined i think fighters that have no film footage should slowly move down in rankings in favor for fighters with actual footage. Look, im not denying they were great fighters, just where they rank.

How could you with a straight face say this boxer with no film footage should be ranked higher vs this boxer with ample footage & a great resume with only 50 fights?

So in 20 years when everything goes 3D do we start to discount all the fighters that we only have 2D footage of?

Get a grip!

[Suckmedry]

No it's plain sensible. The boxers today have nowhere near the skills of the boxers that fought from the mid-1920s to the mid-1950s. There are many reasons for this:

Less fighters
Less fights. In the early days most fighters fought a minimum of once a month. That meant they's have fought at least 50 times within 4 years, and an average of 100-200 times in their entire career.

Less gyms

Less boxing clubs

Less trainers with less experience.

Poor refereeing, failure to allow infighting which is now essentially a dead art.

Too many 'sports scientists, personal trainers, and nutritionists who earn their living from marketing training and nutrition that has nothing to do with boxing.

Heavyweights that are just too heavy to move. Watching two beached whales is more interesting.

Less experience of losing. see back in the old days nobody cared too much about going undefeated, so they threw good fighters together in the hope of making a good fight. Those tough fights were great experiences. Today it's common place to duck any opponent a contender doesn't feel he can beat, right up until the point he challenges for the title. So what we have now is a bunch so manufactured contenders fighting tomato cans, but no each other, and waiting for their shot at the champ. If a tomato can beats a contender then everyone else ducks him. That's why fighters are so **** these days.

The high number of KOs we see today is due to A) The lack of defensive skills, and B) because the fights are badly mismatched.



Everything but without the body builder look.



See my point above on how fighters these days have manufactured records. In the old days nobody ducked anyone and as a result there were more hard fights, and more fights that went the distance. The result of this was that people lost to each other a lot more. This experience made them better fighters.



We agree on that point, but it mostly affected the HW division.



So in 20 years when everything goes 3D do we start to discount all the fighters that we only have 2D footage of?

Get a grip!

Trashing todays era and treating the old days like they were an untouchable golden age is ******. Saying boxing today is **** compared to back then is ignorant and silly. Just like saying the other way around.

[Suckmedry]

Like you make some decent points about more fighters, and the losing thing, but your bias really ruins it.

[Telepath]

i looked at your sig and didn't bother reading your post

You don't seem to be the only one on the forum that's completely incapable of getting a joke.

[Spartacus Sully]

You don't seem to be the only one on the forum that's completely incapable of getting a joke.

I looked at your avatar and umm ummm what were you saying again?

[The Beatles]

I looked at your avatar and umm ummm what were you saying again?

i quite have to agree...i looked at his avatar before i saw his 'joke' of a sig.....

by the way....who is that chick in your avatar??

[r.burgundy]

[/B]

Your knowledge is becoming a joke as is your bias against old time fighters.

Here is a list compiled by hhascup who is both an editor at boxrec and on the selection committee for the IBHOF. These are the top 10 fighters Pep fought in his career when there was one ONE title and less divisions. There were also more professional boxers at that time which means that talent pool was that much deeper.

1. Pedro Hernandez
2. Bobby Poison Ivy
3. Chalky Wright
4. Allie Stolz
5. Sammy Angott
6. Sal Bartolo
7. Jackie Wilson
8. Sal Bartolo
9. Willie Joyce
10. Manuel Ortiz
11. Lulu Costantino
12. Joey Peralta
13. Charles Cabey Lewis
14. Chalky Wright (2)
15. Charles Cabey Lewis (2)
16. Chalky Wright (3)
17. Willie Roache
18. Phil Terranova
19. Jackie Wilson (2)
20. Sal Bartolo (2)
21. Jackie Graves
22. Chalky Wright (4)
23. Jock Leslie
24. Miguel Acevedo
25. Paddy DeMarco
26. Sandy Saddler
27. Sandy Saddler (2)
28. Charley Riley
29. Ray Famechon
30. Sandy Saddler (3)
31. Sandy Saddler (4)
32. Tommy Collins
33. Lulu Perez
34. Hogan Kid Bassey
35. Sonny Leon

Now, just because YOU don't know who many of these fighters are doesn't mean they weren't credible.

dude,your knowledge of math is becoming a joke.you say here are the top 10 fighters pep fought then list 35 guys lol

what dont you seem to understand about my point that neither me,you,or hhascup has seen 90% of these guys fight???why are you not capable of grasping that concept?more boxers does not mean more talent,it usually means less,and please point our or post statistics to prove their were more fighters back then.i guess we all should believe absolutely everything we read then.of the 5 fights ive seen of pep,ive been extremly unimpressed by him and even moreso his opponent.in contrast,the 5 or 6 fights ive seen of sugar ray robinson lead me to believe he is the best to do it.the 2 fights of ive seen of conn show me he invented the shoulder roll.i love these 2 guys

i find it hillarious how everybody talks about how great these guys were but nobody talks about there flaws.bert has nothing but praise for pep,sandler,etc etc but i see to many flaws to count.when somebody makes an objective piece talking about their weaknesses as well as thier strengths,thats when i'll take 1 of those great articles seriously.guys like you deal in imagination,because imagination is what we use when we read.its why books based on movies are never as good as the book.everything you are saying about greb,and who pep fought is based on somebody elses opinion.is that not hard to understand?

earlier you made an absolutely horrible analogy about slaverynot sure what would posses you to compare or contrast the 2,but lets take a look.if you look at a american/euro version of history,they will tell you that africans were savages,walked around naked and had no religion.african history tells an entirely different version of what happened.get my drift?

[The Beatles]

dude,your knowledge of math is becoming a joke.you say here are the top 10 fighters pep fought then list 35 guys lol

what dont you seem to understand about my point that neither me,you,or hhascup has seen 90% of these guys fight???why are you not capable of grasping that concept?more boxers does not mean more talent,it usually means less,and please point our or post statistics to prove their were more fighters back then.i guess we all should believe absolutely everything we read then.of the 5 fights ive seen of pep,ive been extremly unimpressed by him and even moreso his opponent.in contrast,the 5 or 6 fights ive seen of sugar ray robinson lead me to believe he is the best to do it.the 2 fights of ive seen of conn show me he invented the shoulder roll.i love these 2 guys

i find it hillarious how everybody talks about how great these guys were but nobody talks about there flaws.bert has nothing but praise for pep,sandler,etc etc but i see to many flaws to count.when somebody makes an objective piece talking about their weaknesses as well as thier strengths,thats when i'll take 1 of those great articles seriously.guys like you deal in imagination,because imagination is what we use when we read.its why books based on movies are never as good as the book.everything you are saying about greb,and who pep fought is based on somebody elses opinion.is that not hard to understand?

earlier you made an absolutely horrible analogy about slaverynot sure what would posses you to compare or contrast the 2,but lets take a look.if you look at a american/euro version of history,they will tell you that africans were savages,walked around naked and had no religion.african history tells an entirely different version of what happened.get my drift?

there are many points in this post i have to agree with....

judging a fighters greatness by reading articles is downright silly....i'm sorry, but thats just the way it is...if there isn't sufficient footage of the fighter well then tough luck.....you can't sit there and tell me Greb was better than Leonard or Pacquaio because there is nothing there to compare.....

how can i know for sure Greb was better than Pacquiao?....i need to see footage of the fighter first....comparing pacquiao fight videos to greb's newspaper articles is an easy choice.....

i'm not knocking Greb's greatness, his resume alone stands out....but if you haven't actually seen the man fight, coming up with mythical hypothesis of the man is silly